| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1681
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 20:59:20 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote: "Margaret von B." wrote in message . .. What do you all think? Is Pinkerton's heroic story about a car race, starring himself, fact or fiction? Is he really capable of outrunning a 500 hp AMG Mercedes with his little Audi? Obviously, the "Merc" driver didn't want to get too close to the drunk, so he stayed a safe distance behind. Just the sort of braindead braying we expect from you, Sad Sack. Besides, he started out ahead of me, and didn't like being overtaken by a mere hatchback. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#1682
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:16:02 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message . .. On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:33:26 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message m... On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:06:39 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news:fclff15op4tsd3c7smihsdv4fa5h8ds7n9@4ax. com... Typical dishonest strawman from Harry. The whole point is that the 'objectivists' are well aware that *everyone* has expectation bias. That's why it needs to be disabled by the test protocol - DBT. DBT does 'NOT' disable the expectation that things will sound the same. Sure it does - why wouldn't it? Use some logic and common sense, boy. Your expectation is that there would be no difference, either sighted or blind. Typical horsehit from Sad Sack. I *always* expect differnces under sighted conditions - that's what makes it useless. Besides, why would anyone *not* expecting difference even bother to take such a test? The irony of it all!! Those are the ones who spend more time and effort taking those tests. Bull**** - we certainly *proctor* tests where we don't expect difference, but I've never actually *taken* one where I felt there was no possibility of difference. I don't believe that your self analysis is at all honest. For someone whose self-esteem is so low that he hides behind a stupid alias, that's kinda ironic.... If you don't know my identity, you are a complete idiot. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#1683
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lord Pinkerton says in his customary courtly, old Scottish
landed gentry, way: "You really are a sad sack of ****. Have you ever heard the Lab 5, developed directly from the Archimedes project? It is by *any* standard a superb loudspeaker - with the bonus that it looks quite stunning, as with all B&O products. It's even good value at ten grand, considering what's in it. I answered Pray Milaird what has it all to do with A POSITIVE REPORT OF COMPARING COMPONENTS BY ABX? He answered: That's how they worked on the Archimedes project (as they do every day at Harman International, KEF, B&W,. Meridian etc etc etc) , as noted in the link I cited, or can you also not read? And that was what* I *read:.(see foot note quotes) Now it is Pinkerton's time to quote anything in that site ABOUT COMPARING AUDIO COMPONENTS BY ABX. .. 48 hrs enough for you? Just one paragraph will do. (I don't need to encourage you to add one paragraph of filthy, personal comments. That goes with Pinkerton correspondence) Ludovic Mirabel Website quotes follow Eureka/Archimedes website _______________________________ "Technology gives individuals the power to move their world" - the Archimedes Project, 2002 AD In the late 1980s, Bang and Olufsen initiated the Archimedes Project. Three partners shared the work: the Acoustics Laboratory of the Technical University of Denmark, KEF Electronics of England and Bang & Olufsen of Denmark. The Project was involved in psycho-acoustic research and was funded under the European Eureka scheme and was conducted at the Danish Acoustical Laboratory near Copenhagen. Its primary objective was to quantify the subjective influence of room acoustics and loudspeaker directivity and reproduced sound. The project had a planned span of five years, starting in 1987 and terminating in 1992. Its director was Soren Bech - an acquaintance and colleague of Sausalito Audio Works' co-founder David Moulton. Upon the project's completion, Bech joined the research staff at Bang & Olufsen. Knowing of Moulton's involvement with wide-dispersion lenses and knowing of their potential desirability from his ground-breaking work on the Archimedes project, he recommended that Bang & Olufsen and Sausalito Audio Works should meet to consider the use of Acoustic Lens Technology in new loudspeaker products." Another extract: "Project E!105 Archimedes, which ran from 1987 until 1992, was a partnership between Bang & Olufsen, the Department of Acoustic Technology at the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) and KEF Audio Ltd in the UK. Its goal was to investigate how sound quality in the home is affected by the surroundings and how to compensate for factors that have a negative impact on it, according to Soren Bech from Bang & Olufsen:" " We concentrated on looking at the relationships between the loudspeaker, the listener and the room, and how the sound quality was perceived. We used both computer simulations and panel tests in different listening rooms at B&O, DTU and KEF. The Cube in Factory 1 and DTU's anechoic room also played an important role in the project " Soren Bech comments. _The results__ "One of the most important factors to affect sound quality in the home is the sound reflected off the floor and ceiling. Based on the results from the project, Bang & Olufsen developed a new loudspeaker concept: a groundbreaking speaker that reduces these reflections by sending out sound rather like a lighthouse spreads light." End of quotes. |
|
#1684
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steven Sullivan wrote in
message John Atkinson wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: In rec.audio.tech wrote: As Mr. Sullivan, an impassioned advocate of blind testing, had introduced the subject of listening test experience, it seems reasonable to ask Mr. Sullivan about his own experience? My primary experience with ABX is in comparing sound files. I have certainly achieved both positive (comparing re-EQed remasters, or mediocre MP3s to source) and negative (e.g. bit-identical 'remasters', high-quality MP3 to source) results. Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. (Though I must admit, I am not sure what you mean by "bit-identical" MP3s. Do you mean losslessly compressed files?) No, I meant 1) bit identical 'remasters' and 2) high-quality MP3s My misunderstanding. I would be interested at what bit rate you find MP3s to start to become hard to differentiate from CD data? At 128kbps, I find MP3s very easy to identify in A/B comparisons; less so at 256kpbs; and AAC at 320kpbs I miss some of the time, depending on the music. Lacking an ABX box, or a means for quick randomized switching, I haven't any component comparisons worth mentioning. And as I have been pointing out to you, arranging such a test of _real_ components without introducing interfering variables is difficult and time-consuming. Yes, but so are most scientific experiments. Who has said otherwise, other than Arny Krueger? But given that your two pronged refrain in the face of a DBT advocacy seems to be 1) many DBTs you know of were poorly set up 2) even when they;re not, they're not to be believed if they contradict the results of 'sighted listening', especially long-term listening I have to wonder why Stereophile doesn't back up these claims by consuming the time and effort to do so. As I have told you before, Mr. Sullivan, in message .com I have organized or taken part in blind tests "consuming the time and effort to do so." Perhaps you didn't see that message. I should remind you of the parable I told at the HE2005 debate: that in essence, the man with limited or no experience is more confident of his knowledge than the man _with_ such experience. I don't recall that particular parable... Doesn't mean I didn't say it, Mr. Sullivan, your memory notwithstanding. I know you were at the debate, and the recording of the debate is freely available at http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate. I do remember your tale of two amps that *seemed* not sound different, but which you decided later, did...but in any case, alas, parables aren't proof. No, but they do reveal a relevant truth, which is the point of telling them. And as I mentioned in my question to you about that *other* tale, it wasn't exactly proof of your claim, either. My claim, Mr. Sullivan, was that the amplifier that was cheaper, smaller, more appealing, more powerful, that had apparently sounded the same as the "high-end" amps in the 1978 blind tests, let me down in much longer-term listening. My dissatisfaction was not a "claim" but real. Your question at HE2005 was basically that I then should have performed a second blind test of the amplifier? I fail to see what would have been achieved if I had done so. Science is also about parsimony. If that DBT had again produced negative results -- and at that time I had no reason to think otherwise -- should I then have kept the Quad? Despite my feeling, arrived at over 2 years and in the face of all its non-audio aspects, that it was the weak link in my system? If that DBT had produced positive results, then I would have done what I did anyway: replaced the Quad. Remember, all I was doing was looking for an amplifier to use in my system just like any other audiophile. Why on earth would you have me ignore my very real dissatisfaction with the amplifier in favor of abstract constructs? Did _you_, Mr. Sullivan, perform repeated DBTs to choose the amplifier for your system? You can find my final thoughts on this matter, BTW, at http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/705awsi. Now, have you heard the story of the Emperor's New Clothes....? Indeed I have, Mr. Sullivan, and I believe my parable of the Quad is a prime example: here was an amplifier that by all rights should have given me long-term satisfaction, yet ultimately I worked through the cognitive dissonance between my expectations and the evidence of my senses to recognize that it didn't. End of story, as far as I was concerned. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#1685
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Atkinson wrote: snipped My claim, Mr. Sullivan, was that the amplifier that was cheaper, smaller, more appealing, more powerful, that had apparently sounded the same as the "high-end" amps in the 1978 blind tests, let me down in much longer-term listening. My dissatisfaction was not a "claim" but real. Your question at HE2005 was basically that I then should have performed a second blind test of the amplifier? I fail to see what would have been achieved if I had done so. Science is also about parsimony. If that DBT had again produced negative results -- and at that time I had no reason to think otherwise -- should I then have kept the Quad? Despite my feeling, arrived at over 2 years and in the face of all its non-audio aspects, that it was the weak link in my system? If that DBT had produced positive results, then I would have done what I did anyway: replaced the Quad. Remember, all I was doing was looking for an amplifier to use in my system just like any other audiophile. Why on earth would you have me ignore my very real dissatisfaction with the amplifier in favor of abstract constructs? Did _you_, Mr. Sullivan, perform repeated DBTs to choose the amplifier for your system? You can find my final thoughts on this matter, BTW, at http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/705awsi. After wading through this pile of bovine manure, we find this: "However, over time I began to realize that even though the sound of my system with the Quad was THE SAME AS IT HAD EVER BEEN [emphasis added via caps], the magic was gone." In other words, Atkinson's dissatisfaction with the Quad 405 was due to "non-audio factors", which will never be apparent in a blind test. |
|
#1686
|
|||
|
|||
|
: snip, irrelevant : "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message : ... : hmm. clearly, in the case of establishing the CD format, : there were definite incentives to get the sample size : and rate as low as possible: to get an adequate duration : with the limitations of the technically & economically : viable solution available in 1980. : that's not an opinion, but a fact :-) : Rudy : : nb Philips originally wanted to settle on a 14 bit : linear coded format. Sony upped that to 16....come on, : 14 bits ?? who are ya kiddin? Listening tests ??? : : Vinyl, on the best day of its life, is around 12 bits : equivalent. The widest dynamic range known on a music : master tape is around 80dB, 14 bits will allow a properly : dithered dynamic range of 81dB. What's the problem? :: snip, irrelevant : Explain why your claimed dynamic range of mastertapes is relevant to the establishment of a hifi standard of dynamic range. Actual music should set the dynamic range target, not some -- this is technically possible in the 80's -- arbitrary range. this century, they can attain higher master tape quality, Stewart: http://www.strongestudios.com/folio.html so your 80 dB sound like a gospel :-) no numbers, but interesting anyway : http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/2192/essays7.html Rudy heard a concert grand played up close 80 dB for real ? no Sttway, Jose |
|
#1687
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:44:01 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:16:02 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:33:26 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message om... On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:06:39 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news:fclff15op4tsd3c7smihsdv4fa5h8ds7n9@4ax .com... Typical dishonest strawman from Harry. The whole point is that the 'objectivists' are well aware that *everyone* has expectation bias. That's why it needs to be disabled by the test protocol - DBT. DBT does 'NOT' disable the expectation that things will sound the same. Sure it does - why wouldn't it? Use some logic and common sense, boy. Your expectation is that there would be no difference, either sighted or blind. Typical horsehit from Sad Sack. I *always* expect differnces under sighted conditions - that's what makes it useless. Besides, why would anyone *not* expecting difference even bother to take such a test? The irony of it all!! Those are the ones who spend more time and effort taking those tests. Bull**** - we certainly *proctor* tests where we don't expect difference, but I've never actually *taken* one where I felt there was no possibility of difference. I don't believe that your self analysis is at all honest. For someone whose self-esteem is so low that he hides behind a stupid alias, that's kinda ironic.... If you don't know my identity, you are a complete idiot. That's waht makes it so stupid, Sad Sack.................. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#1688
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:59:24 +0200, "Ruud Broens"
wrote: : snip, irrelevant : "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message : ... : hmm. clearly, in the case of establishing the CD format, : there were definite incentives to get the sample size : and rate as low as possible: to get an adequate duration : with the limitations of the technically & economically : viable solution available in 1980. : that's not an opinion, but a fact :-) : Rudy : : nb Philips originally wanted to settle on a 14 bit : linear coded format. Sony upped that to 16....come on, : 14 bits ?? who are ya kiddin? Listening tests ??? : : Vinyl, on the best day of its life, is around 12 bits : equivalent. The widest dynamic range known on a music : master tape is around 80dB, 14 bits will allow a properly : dithered dynamic range of 81dB. What's the problem? :: snip, irrelevant : Explain why your claimed dynamic range of mastertapes is relevant to the establishment of a hifi standard of dynamic range. It sets the limit to what the replay medium need encompass. Actual music should set the dynamic range target, not some -- this is technically possible in the 80's -- arbitrary range. Actual live music never exceeds about 85-90dB, even under *very* exceptional circumstances, and is more commonly 65-70dB dynamic range. this century, they can attain higher master tape quality, Stewart: http://www.strongestudios.com/folio.html so your 80 dB sound like a gospel :-) You don't know much about recording, do you Ruud? There's no way that will exceed 65dB dynamic range. no numbers, but interesting anyway : http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/2192/essays7.html Rudy heard a concert grand played up close 80 dB for real ? no Sttway, Jose You are confusing dynamic range with maxiumum SPL, the *noise floor* will hardly ever be less than 40dB SPL. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#1689
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#1690
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message oups.com My claim, Mr. Sullivan, was that the amplifier that was cheaper, smaller, more appealing, more powerful, that had apparently sounded the same as the "high-end" amps in the 1978 blind tests, let me down in much longer-term listening. There's so many things wrong with this statement that I almost don't know where to start. 1978 was what 27 years ago? It is quite clear that this one questionable test done under undisclosed conditions no matter how flawed, is in Atkinson's mind *the* one defining moment for *all* blind tests. My dissatisfaction was not a "claim" but real. Dissatisfaction is not tangible. Therefore, it's only real for the person with the dissatisfaction. It would appear that all of Atkinson't haranguing about the evils of blind tests is his primal reaction to this one defining event in his life. Your question at HE2005 was basically that I then should have performed a second blind test of the amplifier? On a good day *something* meaningful would have been done besides just the uttering of a mighty Yeccch! I fail to see what would have been achieved if I had done so. Since we know nothing at all about the first DBT, its hard to predict what the second one would have entailed, let alone whether it might have been beneficial. For example, it has evolved that power amp tests can be highly load-dependent. It's possible that the first, favorable DBT might have been done with a low-resolution, and/or high impedance and/or a low-reactance speaker in a room that might or might not had had a number of acoustical masking influences. The point is that if we for a moment accept the insane Stereophile dogma that DBTs lack sensitivity, due to attributes of the first listening test that have nothing to do with sighted versus blind, but rather had to do with here versus there. Science is also about parsimony. Horsefeathers. Science is not about thrift at the expense of finding reliable information. In this 27 year-old anecdote, Atkinson seems to have revealed a hidden cheapskate nerve when it comes to time spent doing anything but long-term sighted evaluations. It strikes me that if the Quad amplifier had audible difficulty in Atkinson's listening environment, a second blind test in that listening environment might have been amazingly revealing. As noted above, the room, the speakers, and the music which caused audible difficulty with the Quad amplfier should have been well-known to Atkinson at that point, if it existed at all. He should have been able to sail through a blind test with flying colors. Furthermore, his positive results might have been a defining moment in audio, because of the generally favorable critical impression of the Quad amplifier at the time. If that DBT had again produced negative results -- and at that time I had no reason to think otherwise This speaks to Atkinson's flawed logic. Lots of potentially signfificant things, as I just pointed out, might have happened while Atkinsons had been struggling with the Quad amp. If the amp was that bad, a listener who is as skilled as Atkinson claims to be would know exactly what is wrong with it and how to make it obvious during a proper listening test. should I then have kept the Quad? It seems to me that if the Quad's problems weren't Atkinson's well-known audiophool nervosa, then it would have been dead meat when put under the ABX microscope. Despite my feeling, arrived at over 2 years and in the face of all its non-audio aspects, that it was the weak link in my system? If that DBT had produced positive results, then I would have done what I did anyway: replaced the Quad. If the DBT had produced positive results there would have been an interesting article along the lines of HFN's "Some Amplifiers Do Sound Different", some 5 years earlier, and over Atkinson's name not mine. |
|
#1691
|
|||
|
|||
|
In rec.audio.tech paul packer wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 17:41:35 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan wrote: Doesn't matter. The question is *first*, whether there was any real audible differemce *at all*, not whether it turned your preference one way or another. Nor, it seems, did you bother level-matching, another elementary precaution before concluding 'difference exists'. Level matching? I wasn't A/Bing here, I was enjoying music in the way it was meant to be enjoyed, sitting back in a recliner eyes closed with no thought but for how well, or otherwise, I could picture the orchestra before me. Was I thinking of any of Arny's infernal machines? Not on your nelly! Fine, but now you know why your beliefs about *why* you heard what you heard, might not actually be correct. You might have been hearing simple level differences, for example, not something intrinsic to the gear. Which brings me to my next confusion: No, I think you shoudl stop right here, and re-assess your current 'knowledge' in light of long-standing tenets of perceptual psychology. I think I "shoudl" be allowed to keep going, perceptual psychology or no. :-) No one can stop you from flaunting ignorance here. Nor you. Nor anyone's. Welcome to Usenet. But some people's ignorance about a subject is temporary. Others seem immune to any attempt to abolish it. What category do you belong to? -- -S "God is an asshole!" -- Ruth Fisher, 'Six Feet Under' |
|
#1692
|
|||
|
|||
|
In rec.audio.tech John Atkinson wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in message John Atkinson wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: In rec.audio.tech wrote: As Mr. Sullivan, an impassioned advocate of blind testing, had introduced the subject of listening test experience, it seems reasonable to ask Mr. Sullivan about his own experience? My primary experience with ABX is in comparing sound files. I have certainly achieved both positive (comparing re-EQed remasters, or mediocre MP3s to source) and negative (e.g. bit-identical 'remasters', high-quality MP3 to source) results. Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. (Though I must admit, I am not sure what you mean by "bit-identical" MP3s. Do you mean losslessly compressed files?) No, I meant 1) bit identical 'remasters' and 2) high-quality MP3s My misunderstanding. I would be interested at what bit rate you find MP3s to start to become hard to differentiate from CD data? At 128kbps, I find MP3s very easy to identify in A/B comparisons; less so at 256kpbs; and AAC at 320kpbs I miss some of the time, depending on the music. bitrate is one dimension; sample encoding difficulty another; encoder quality yet another. I've not tested anywhere near the entire range of combinations. However, the folks at hydrogenaudio.org have tested many. Personally, I've found variable bitrate centered around 196 kbps (--alt preset standard; IIRC the low end of bitrates here is 128, up to the max that MP3 allows) encoding using LAME to be un-ABXable from source for all samples I've tried (and any that I have set up for others to try), whihc have included rock, jazz, and classical samples. I have not however tried any of the collection of 'difficult' samples that have been identified and used by the codec development community or HA.org to improve MP3. I know there are people at HA.org who have reported positive ABX results even for very high bitrates, using 'difficult' samples. Lacking an ABX box, or a means for quick randomized switching, I haven't any component comparisons worth mentioning. And as I have been pointing out to you, arranging such a test of _real_ components without introducing interfering variables is difficult and time-consuming. Yes, but so are most scientific experiments. Who has said otherwise, other than Arny Krueger? But given that your two pronged refrain in the face of a DBT advocacy seems to be 1) many DBTs you know of were poorly set up 2) even when they;re not, they're not to be believed if they contradict the results of 'sighted listening', especially long-term listening I have to wonder why Stereophile doesn't back up these claims by consuming the time and effort to do so. As I have told you before, Mr. Sullivan, in message .com I have organized or taken part in blind tests "consuming the time and effort to do so." Perhaps you didn't see that message. I may not have. However, can you point me to Stereophile's DBTs that actually support the claim that long-term acclimation to two amps reveals real differences between them? I should remind you of the parable I told at the HE2005 debate: that in essence, the man with limited or no experience is more confident of his knowledge than the man _with_ such experience. I don't recall that particular parable... Doesn't mean I didn't say it, Mr. Sullivan, your memory notwithstanding. I know you were at the debate, and the recording of the debate is freely available at http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate. I do remember your tale of two amps that *seemed* not sound different, but which you decided later, did...but in any case, alas, parables aren't proof. No, but they do reveal a relevant truth, which is the point of telling them. Is the truth *more* relevant to high end than the one revealed by the Emperor's New Clothes? And as I mentioned in my question to you about that *other* tale, it wasn't exactly proof of your claim, either. My claim, Mr. Sullivan, was that the amplifier that was cheaper, smaller, more appealing, more powerful, that had apparently sounded the same as the "high-end" amps in the 1978 blind tests, let me down in much longer-term listening. My dissatisfaction was not a "claim" but real. Your question at HE2005 was basically that I then should have performed a second blind test of the amplifier? One (perhaps wrongly?) presumes that the 'let down' refers to what one *heard*. Therefore it is a claim of audible difference -- one that appeared over long term listening. So, yes, *of course* you should have performed a second blind test, if you wanted to show that the first one gave a false negative. Which was the *point* of your story, was it not? I fail to see what would have been achieved if I had done so. Science is also about parsimony. If that DBT had again produced negative results -- and at that time I had no reason to think otherwise -- should I then have kept the Quad? Despite my feeling, arrived at over 2 years and in the face of all its non-audio aspects, that it was the weak link in my system? If that DBT had produced positive results, then I would have done what I did anyway: replaced the Quad. THere are any number of reasons one might keep an amp that failed an audible difference test -- you can 'like' and amp for reasons that aren't really about its sound. The issue is your claims about the amp's *sound*. The only thing you *should* do after such a test is temper your claims about how different one amp sounds from the other amp. In other words, face reality, rather than hammer it into the shape you prefer. Remember, all I was doing was looking for an amplifier to use in my system just like any other audiophile. Why on earth would you have me ignore my very real dissatisfaction with the amplifier in favor of abstract constructs? Did _you_, Mr. Sullivan, perform repeated DBTs to choose the amplifier for your system? You can find my final thoughts on this matter, BTW, at http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/705awsi. You're indulging in another typical, tiresome audiophile trope. No, I don't perform DBTs on my amp purchases. I *also* don't make poorly-founded claims of audible difference about them. I'm not having you 'ignore the real dissatisfaction' etc. I'm questioning the chain of logic that leads from "I am dissatisfied' to "the amps must sound different'. Based on the evidence you provided, that chain is faulty. Now, have you heard the story of the Emperor's New Clothes....? Indeed I have, Mr. Sullivan, and I believe my parable of the Quad is a prime example: here was an amplifier that by all rights should have given me long-term satisfaction, yet ultimately I worked through the cognitive dissonance between my expectations and the evidence of my senses to recognize that it didn't. End of story, as far as I was concerned. If the evidence of one's senses was the 'end of story' for establishing the truth of a claim, then science, law and a great many other human endeavors would be vastly easier. If one isn't particularly interested in the the truth of a claim, well, the Emperor's court seems always to have room to spare. No one questions that you were 'dissatisfied'. But it's entirely reasonable to question whether your *beliefs* about *the source* of your dissatisfaction, are accurate. You haven't established that the amplifiers actually sounded different; you haven't established an independent reason why they *should* sound different (e.g., measurements); so to assert that that difference was the source of your dissatisfaction, is at best premature. -- -S "God is an asshole!" -- Ruth Fisher, 'Six Feet Under' |
|
#1693
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... : On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:59:24 +0200, "Ruud Broens" : wrote: : : : : Vinyl, on the best day of its life, is around 12 bits : : equivalent. The widest dynamic range known on a music : : master tape is around 80dB, 14 bits will allow a properly : : dithered dynamic range of 81dB. What's the problem? : :: snip, irrelevant : : : Explain why your claimed dynamic range of mastertapes is relevant : to the establishment of a hifi standard of dynamic range. : : It sets the limit to what the replay medium need encompass. : : Actual music should set the dynamic range target, not some : -- this is technically possible in the 80's -- arbitrary range. : : Actual live music never exceeds about 85-90dB, : even under *very* exceptional circumstances, and is : more commonly 65-70dB dynamic range. So you're saying a 90 dB dynamic range is there for the taking, but your listening room's awfully noisy airco makes it impossible to enjoy ? No wonder you claim all amps sound the same :-) : : this century, they can attain higher master tape quality, Stewart: : http://www.strongestudios.com/folio.html : so your 80 dB sound like a gospel :-) : : You don't know much about recording, do you Ruud? There's no way that : will exceed 65dB dynamic range. : : no numbers, but interesting anyway : : http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/2192/essays7.html : : Rudy : heard a concert grand played up close : 80 dB for real ? no Sttway, Jose : : You are confusing dynamic range with maxiumum SPL, the *noise floor* : will hardly ever be less than 40dB SPL. : -- -you mean, you've got _that much_ noise coming from your speakers .... that's sad. -- you are confusing facts with your overheated imagination, SP --- omniscience claim noted. : Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering As from environmental factors, 27 dB daytime eq. reported in NL iirc. That's in average living rooms, should be better in your dedicated room , i presume. I'm not confusing, i'm detracting one from the other, eh ? in this case*, 110 - 20 = 90 dB range. but anyway, surely you're not saying that the background noise level in a listening room should dictate the range that should be captured on a medium ? That's silly, really, Rudy * a studio |
|
#1694
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:44:01 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message . .. On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:16:02 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message m... On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:33:26 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news:5mduf1lsccumkd21mt9m60ed2p4qu4flqs@4ax. com... On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:06:39 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news:fclff15op4tsd3c7smihsdv4fa5h8ds7n9@4a x.com... Typical dishonest strawman from Harry. The whole point is that the 'objectivists' are well aware that *everyone* has expectation bias. That's why it needs to be disabled by the test protocol - DBT. DBT does 'NOT' disable the expectation that things will sound the same. Sure it does - why wouldn't it? Use some logic and common sense, boy. Your expectation is that there would be no difference, either sighted or blind. Typical horsehit from Sad Sack. I *always* expect differnces under sighted conditions - that's what makes it useless. Besides, why would anyone *not* expecting difference even bother to take such a test? The irony of it all!! Those are the ones who spend more time and effort taking those tests. Bull**** - we certainly *proctor* tests where we don't expect difference, but I've never actually *taken* one where I felt there was no possibility of difference. I don't believe that your self analysis is at all honest. For someone whose self-esteem is so low that he hides behind a stupid alias, that's kinda ironic.... If you don't know my identity, you are a complete idiot. That's waht makes it so stupid, Sad Sack.................. Then certainly, I am not hiding. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#1695
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 22:56:47 +0200, "Ruud Broens"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message .. . : On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:59:24 +0200, "Ruud Broens" : wrote: : : : : Vinyl, on the best day of its life, is around 12 bits : : equivalent. The widest dynamic range known on a music : : master tape is around 80dB, 14 bits will allow a properly : : dithered dynamic range of 81dB. What's the problem? : :: snip, irrelevant : : : Explain why your claimed dynamic range of mastertapes is relevant : to the establishment of a hifi standard of dynamic range. : : It sets the limit to what the replay medium need encompass. : : Actual music should set the dynamic range target, not some : -- this is technically possible in the 80's -- arbitrary range. : : Actual live music never exceeds about 85-90dB, : even under *very* exceptional circumstances, and is : more commonly 65-70dB dynamic range. So you're saying a 90 dB dynamic range is there for the taking, but your listening room's awfully noisy airco makes it impossible to enjoy ? No wonder you claim all amps sound the same :-) Are you being deliberately obscure, or are you just stupid? I'm referring to the dynamic range of the *original performance*. Besides, I live in the UK, and as is the norm here, I don't have aircon. I do have one slow-running fan in the room, in my Krell, and that does set the noise floor in the room, at something in the mid-20s. It's a *very* quiet room - one advantage of living in the country, with a concrete slab floor, 13" thick walls and deep triple glazing. The *room* is certainly capable of achieving 90dB dynamic range, even if there's no available *recording* with that range. : this century, they can attain higher master tape quality, Stewart: : http://www.strongestudios.com/folio.html : so your 80 dB sound like a gospel :-) : : You don't know much about recording, do you Ruud? There's no way that : will exceed 65dB dynamic range. : : no numbers, but interesting anyway : : http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/2192/essays7.html : : Rudy : heard a concert grand played up close : 80 dB for real ? no Sttway, Jose : : You are confusing dynamic range with maxiumum SPL, the *noise floor* : will hardly ever be less than 40dB SPL. : -- -you mean, you've got _that much_ noise coming from your speakers ... that's sad. -- you are confusing facts with your overheated imagination, SP --- omniscience claim noted. Your idiocy continues. That's the noise floor of the concert hall, only studio recordings are able to get below a 30dB noise floor, and that would require pretty quiet breathing on the part of the performers. As noted above, with only me sitting quietly in it, my listening room is somewhere in the mid-20s (very difficult to measure due to self-noise in the microphone). : Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering As from environmental factors, 27 dB daytime eq. reported in NL iirc. That's in average living rooms, should be better in your dedicated room , i presume. I have yet to find an *average* living room that quiet, I'd have said that 30-35 dB was more normal in daytime, more for urban dwellings. I'm not confusing, i'm detracting one from the other, eh ? in this case*, 110 - 20 = 90 dB range. From where did you get the 20? but anyway, surely you're not saying that the background noise level in a listening room should dictate the range that should be captured on a medium ? No, you completely misread what I wrote. For most people, it does however set a limit of around 70-80dB in the replay system, from the 30-35 of the room noise floor to the 105-110 of the system at the listening position. Exceptionally quiet rooms housing exceptionally powerful systems can extend this to a little more than 90dB, which is wider than you'll ever need. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#1696
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 05:34:33 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote: Level-matched DBTs have nothing to do with any 'infernal machine'. They do however have to do with applying a modicum of knowledge and intelligence to the matter of deciding whether there is a *real* physical difference in sound quality between two items. I fear I don't know what a "real physical difference in sound quality" is. I wasn't even aware that sound had mass. |
|
#1697
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#1698
|
|||
|
|||
|
In rec.audio.tech paul packer wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 05:34:33 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Level-matched DBTs have nothing to do with any 'infernal machine'. They do however have to do with applying a modicum of knowledge and intelligence to the matter of deciding whether there is a *real* physical difference in sound quality between two items. I fear I don't know what a "real physical difference in sound quality" is. I wasn't even aware that sound had mass. This is a curious claim. Do you consider all sound to be imaginary? Sound requires wave motion (repeated round of compression and expansion of density) of molecules (usually air). Which of course have mass. That's why in the vaccuum of space, no one can hear you scream. Any real difference in sound is a difference in those waves. -- -S "God is an asshole!" -- Ruth Fisher, 'Six Feet Under' |
|
#1699
|
|||
|
|||
|
paul packer wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 05:34:33 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Level-matched DBTs have nothing to do with any 'infernal machine'. They do however have to do with applying a modicum of knowledge and intelligence to the matter of deciding whether there is a *real* physical difference in sound quality between two items. I fear I don't know what a "real physical difference in sound quality" is. That should have been clear from the other things you have said, Paul. I wasn't even aware that sound had mass. Must two things each have mass to be different? For example, 2 3. Does 2 and/or 3 have mass? |
|
#1701
|
|||
|
|||
|
jclause said: Attention Arny Krueger: Did you not see my last post? It is copied below for your perusal. Or do you wish to duck out? Ducking out is, sad to say, one of Krooger's main "debating trade" tools. And the Beast's new disciple, Sillyborg, has chosen to emulate him. |
|
#1702
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... In rec.audio.tech paul packer wrote: On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 05:34:33 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Level-matched DBTs have nothing to do with any 'infernal machine'. They do however have to do with applying a modicum of knowledge and intelligence to the matter of deciding whether there is a *real* physical difference in sound quality between two items. I fear I don't know what a "real physical difference in sound quality" is. I wasn't even aware that sound had mass. This is a curious claim. Do you consider all sound to be imaginary? Sound requires wave motion (repeated round of compression and expansion of density) of molecules (usually air). Which of course have mass. That's why in the vaccuum of space, no one can hear you scream. Any real difference in sound is a difference in those waves. no,. that's just a difference in the sound waves. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#1703
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... : On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 22:56:47 +0200, "Ruud Broens" : wrote: : : "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message : .. . : : On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:59:24 +0200, "Ruud Broens" : : wrote: : : : : : : Vinyl, on the best day of its life, is around 12 bits : : : equivalent. The widest dynamic range known on a music : : : master tape is around 80dB, 14 bits will allow a properly : : : dithered dynamic range of 81dB. What's the problem? : : :: snip, irrelevant : : : : : Explain why your claimed dynamic range of mastertapes is relevant : : to the establishment of a hifi standard of dynamic range. : : : : It sets the limit to what the replay medium need encompass. : : : : Actual music should set the dynamic range target, not some : : -- this is technically possible in the 80's -- arbitrary range. : : : : Actual live music never exceeds about 85-90dB, : : even under *very* exceptional circumstances, and is : : more commonly 65-70dB dynamic range. : : So you're saying a 90 dB dynamic range is there for the taking, : but your listening room's awfully noisy airco makes it impossible : to enjoy ? No wonder you claim all amps sound the same :-) : : Are you being deliberately obscure, or are you just stupid? I'm : referring to the dynamic range of the *original performance*. don't go into politics, SP - your rebuttals lack convincing power ;-) : : Besides, I live in the UK, and as is the norm here, I don't have : aircon. I do have one slow-running fan in the room, in my Krell, and : that does set the noise floor in the room, at something in the : mid-20s. It's a *very* quiet room - one advantage of living in the : country, with a concrete slab floor, 13" thick walls and deep triple : glazing. The *room* is certainly capable of achieving 90dB dynamic : range, even if there's no available *recording* with that range. : : : this century, they can attain higher master tape quality, Stewart: : : http://www.strongestudios.com/folio.html : : so your 80 dB sound like a gospel :-) : : : : You don't know much about recording, do you Ruud? There's no way that : : will exceed 65dB dynamic range. : : : : no numbers, but interesting anyway : : : http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/2192/essays7.html : : : : Rudy : : heard a concert grand played up close : : 80 dB for real ? no Sttway, Jose : : : : You are confusing dynamic range with maxiumum SPL, the *noise floor* : : will hardly ever be less than 40dB SPL. : : -- : -you mean, you've got _that much_ noise coming from your speakers : ... that's sad. : -- you are confusing facts with your overheated imagination, SP : --- omniscience claim noted. : : Your idiocy continues. That's the noise floor of the concert hall, : only studio recordings are able to get below a 30dB noise floor, and : that would require pretty quiet breathing on the part of the : performers. As noted above, with only me sitting quietly in it, my : listening room is somewhere in the mid-20s (very difficult to measure : due to self-noise in the microphone). Interesting tactic - first rewriting music as _live music_, then claiming from that point onwards that's what i wrote - taken lessons in the debating trade ? : : : Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering : : As from environmental factors, 27 dB daytime eq. reported in NL iirc. : That's in average living rooms, should be better in your dedicated room : , i presume. : : I have yet to find an *average* living room that quiet, I'd have said : that 30-35 dB was more normal in daytime, more for urban dwellings. : : I'm not confusing, i'm detracting one from the other, eh ? : in this case**, 110 - 20 = 90 dB range. : : From where did you get the 20? I got lucky - found it in a breakfast cereal box - where did you find your 40, P.? ....deceptive editing noted.....** : but anyway, surely you're not : saying that the background noise level in a listening room should : dictate the range that should be captured on a medium ? : : No, you completely misread what I wrote. For most people, it does : however set a limit of around 70-80dB in the replay system, from the : 30-35 of the room noise floor to the 105-110 of the system at the : listening position. agreed. Exceptionally quiet rooms housing exceptionally : powerful systems can extend this to a little more than 90dB, which is : wider than you'll ever need. a little more ? need ?? to use a direct quote: Bull****! evidently, _you_ misread music as live music ... without it, of course, you argumentation falls utterly apart. Have fun at the fringe festival, Rudy : -- : : Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#1704
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:48:41 +0200, "Ruud Broens"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message .. . : On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 22:56:47 +0200, "Ruud Broens" : wrote: : : "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message : .. . : : On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:59:24 +0200, "Ruud Broens" : : wrote: : : : : : : Vinyl, on the best day of its life, is around 12 bits : : : equivalent. The widest dynamic range known on a music : : : master tape is around 80dB, 14 bits will allow a properly : : : dithered dynamic range of 81dB. What's the problem? : : :: snip, irrelevant : : : : : Explain why your claimed dynamic range of mastertapes is relevant : : to the establishment of a hifi standard of dynamic range. : : : : It sets the limit to what the replay medium need encompass. : : : : Actual music should set the dynamic range target, not some : : -- this is technically possible in the 80's -- arbitrary range. : : : : Actual live music never exceeds about 85-90dB, : : even under *very* exceptional circumstances, and is : : more commonly 65-70dB dynamic range. : : So you're saying a 90 dB dynamic range is there for the taking, : but your listening room's awfully noisy airco makes it impossible : to enjoy ? No wonder you claim all amps sound the same :-) : : Are you being deliberately obscure, or are you just stupid? I'm : referring to the dynamic range of the *original performance*. don't go into politics, SP - your rebuttals lack convincing power ;-) : : Besides, I live in the UK, and as is the norm here, I don't have : aircon. I do have one slow-running fan in the room, in my Krell, and : that does set the noise floor in the room, at something in the : mid-20s. It's a *very* quiet room - one advantage of living in the : country, with a concrete slab floor, 13" thick walls and deep triple : glazing. The *room* is certainly capable of achieving 90dB dynamic : range, even if there's no available *recording* with that range. : : : this century, they can attain higher master tape quality, Stewart: : : http://www.strongestudios.com/folio.html : : so your 80 dB sound like a gospel :-) : : : : You don't know much about recording, do you Ruud? There's no way that : : will exceed 65dB dynamic range. : : : : no numbers, but interesting anyway : : : http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/2192/essays7.html : : : : Rudy : : heard a concert grand played up close : : 80 dB for real ? no Sttway, Jose : : : : You are confusing dynamic range with maxiumum SPL, the *noise floor* : : will hardly ever be less than 40dB SPL. : : -- : -you mean, you've got _that much_ noise coming from your speakers : ... that's sad. : -- you are confusing facts with your overheated imagination, SP : --- omniscience claim noted. : : Your idiocy continues. That's the noise floor of the concert hall, : only studio recordings are able to get below a 30dB noise floor, and : that would require pretty quiet breathing on the part of the : performers. As noted above, with only me sitting quietly in it, my : listening room is somewhere in the mid-20s (very difficult to measure : due to self-noise in the microphone). Interesting tactic - first rewriting music as _live music_, then claiming from that point onwards that's what i wrote - taken lessons in the debating trade ? Your stupidity appears to be unbounded - specifying live music, i.e. acoustic jazz, classical etc, works in your favour, as amplified music has even less dynamic range. : : Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering : : As from environmental factors, 27 dB daytime eq. reported in NL iirc. : That's in average living rooms, should be better in your dedicated room : , i presume. : : I have yet to find an *average* living room that quiet, I'd have said : that 30-35 dB was more normal in daytime, more for urban dwellings. : : I'm not confusing, i'm detracting one from the other, eh ? : in this case**, 110 - 20 = 90 dB range. : : From where did you get the 20? I got lucky - found it in a breakfast cereal box - where did you find your 40, P.? Acoustics textbooks, also wide experience or real concert halls. ...deceptive editing noted.....** : but anyway, surely you're not : saying that the background noise level in a listening room should : dictate the range that should be captured on a medium ? : : No, you completely misread what I wrote. For most people, it does : however set a limit of around 70-80dB in the replay system, from the : 30-35 of the room noise floor to the 105-110 of the system at the : listening position. agreed. Exceptionally quiet rooms housing exceptionally : powerful systems can extend this to a little more than 90dB, which is : wider than you'll ever need. a little more ? need ?? to use a direct quote: Bull****! evidently, _you_ misread music as live music ... without it, of course, you argumentation falls utterly apart. What lunacy is this? What kind of music do you now claim you are talking about? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#1705
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... : On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:48:41 +0200, "Ruud Broens" : wrote: some snippin' required, so here goes : : Your idiocy continues. That's the noise floor of the concert hall, : : only studio recordings are able to get below a 30dB noise floor, and : : that would require pretty quiet breathing on the part of the : : performers. : : As noted above, with only me sitting quietly in it, my : : listening room is somewhere in the mid-20s (very difficult to measure : : due to self-noise in the microphone). : Interesting tactic - first rewriting music as _live music_, then claiming : from that point onwards that's what i wrote : - taken lessons in the debating trade ? : : Your stupidity appears to be unbounded - specifying live music, i.e. : acoustic jazz, classical etc, works in your favour, as amplified music : has even less dynamic range. : First: studio recording of acoustical instruments result in music registrations --what's your hangup with 'concert hall noise floor' as being in some way relevant with such a registration? Self-noise of competent microphones is below 20 dB SPL, eg. AT 3035 - a USD 200 job - states 12 dB SPL eq. noise level Close miking just about anything will quickly get you in the 110+ dB SPL range, so a 100 dB range is possible for sure. Of course this also depends on the lowest acoustical level attainable from the instrument/environment . Directional microphones / noise gates, etc. are used to minimize mechanical noise, if necessary. The master recording's dynamic range can, depending on composition, etc., very well be in excess of 90 dB. I believe it was dbx claiming a 100 dB requirement for the recording of acoustical instruments' performances. Second: many types of music don't use acoustical instruments, or exclusively so, yet also do not start out as amplified music, so another strawman there noted. Electronically generated signals can have pretty much a dynamic range that is limited by the electronics used, that is *well over 100 dB*. : : : Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering : : : : As from environmental factors, 27 dB daytime eq. reported in NL iirc. : : That's in average living rooms, should be better in your dedicated room : : , i presume. : : : : I have yet to find an *average* living room that quiet, I'd have said : : that 30-35 dB was more normal in daytime, more for urban dwellings. : : : : I'm not confusing, i'm detracting one from the other, eh ? : : in this case**, 110 - 20 = 90 dB range. : : : : From where did you get the 20? : I got lucky - found it in a breakfast cereal box : - where did you find your 40, P.? : : Acoustics textbooks, also wide experience or real concert halls. : make up your mind: is it wide experience OR real concert halls ? :-) : ...deceptive editing noted.....** : : : but anyway, surely you're not : : saying that the background noise level in a listening room should : : dictate the range that should be captured on a medium ? : : : : No, you completely misread what I wrote. For most people, it does : : however set a limit of around 70-80dB in the replay system, from the : : 30-35 of the room noise floor to the 105-110 of the system at the : : listening position. : : agreed. : : Exceptionally quiet rooms housing exceptionally : : powerful systems can extend this to a little more than 90dB, which is : : wider than you'll ever need. : : a little more ? need ?? to use a direct quote: Bull****! : evidently, _you_ misread music as live music ... : without it, of course, you argumentation falls utterly apart. : : What lunacy is this? What kind of music do you now claim you are : talking about? See above. Cheers, Rudy: -- : : Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#1706
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message
First: studio recording of acoustical instruments result in music registrations --what's your hangup with 'concert hall noise floor' as being in some way relevant with such a registration? Self-noise of competent microphones is below 20 dB SPL, eg. AT 3035 - a USD 200 job - states 12 dB SPL eq. noise level While $200 will get you a mic with a 12 dB SPL noise figure, no amount of money will get you a concert hall with 100 people in it that has a 12 dB SPL noise floor. Close miking just about anything will quickly get you in the 110+ dB SPL range, so a 100 dB range is possible for sure. Ignorance of concert hall noise floors, particularly those with people, even just the musicians in them, noted. Of course this also depends on the lowest acoustical level attainable from the instrument/environment . Directional microphones / noise gates, etc. are used to minimize mechanical noise, f necessary. The noise floor of a concert hall is usually quite pervasive. Furthermore, its pretty much guaranteed that the noisiest part of the room is where the people are, even if its just the musicians. The master recording's dynamic range can, depending on composition, etc., very well be in excess of 90 dB. It just doesn't seem to happen. I believe it was DBX claiming a 100 dB requirement for the recording of acoustical instruments' performances. I guess you haven't figured out that vendor claims and the fact can be slightly divergent at times. A lot of recordings are said to be made without compression or gain riding, and I see no reason for so many people to lie about it. If you look at actual recording, the dynamic range pretty well peaks out below 75 dB. Second: many types of music don't use acoustical instruments, or exclusively so, yet also do not start out as amplified music, so another straw man there noted. Electronically generated signals can have pretty much a dynamic range that is limited by the electronics used, that is *well over 100 dB*. Again, your ignorance is showing. While electronic instruments may create sounds over 100 dB, their dynamic range is often quite less. I routinely record electronic keyboards for example. They often have noise floors that are only 60-70 dB down. Remember, they have analog circuitry in them as well, even if the notes are generated digitally. |
|
#1707
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:16:10 +0200, "Ruud Broens"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message .. . : On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:48:41 +0200, "Ruud Broens" : wrote: some snippin' required, so here goes : : Your idiocy continues. That's the noise floor of the concert hall, : : only studio recordings are able to get below a 30dB noise floor, and : : that would require pretty quiet breathing on the part of the : : performers. : : As noted above, with only me sitting quietly in it, my : : listening room is somewhere in the mid-20s (very difficult to measure : : due to self-noise in the microphone). : Interesting tactic - first rewriting music as _live music_, then claiming : from that point onwards that's what i wrote : - taken lessons in the debating trade ? : : Your stupidity appears to be unbounded - specifying live music, i.e. : acoustic jazz, classical etc, works in your favour, as amplified music : has even less dynamic range. : First: studio recording of acoustical instruments result in music registrations --what's your hangup with 'concert hall noise floor' as being in some way relevant with such a registration? What, you think that studios don't have a noise floor? Self-noise of competent microphones is below 20 dB SPL, eg. AT 3035 - a USD 200 job - states 12 dB SPL eq. noise level Close miking just about anything will quickly get you in the 110+ dB SPL range, so a 100 dB range is possible for sure. Utter bull****! Put one musician in that studio, and your 12dB floor immediately jumps to at least 20dB, more likely 25 as soon as he begins to play, and is therefore not sitting absolutely still. Do you have *any* concept of how quiet 20dB is? At that level (and I have spent some time in anechoic chambers - very unpleasant) the only sounds you can hear are your clothing rustling as you breathe, your own breathing, and the blood coursing through your ears. It usually takes about two minutes of sitting absolutely still in an utterly quiet environment before you can perceive these noises. A typical string quartet will generate something like 30-35 dB in the rests between playing. Basically Ruud, your every post reveals that you know absolutely nothing about acoustics. Of course this also depends on the lowest acoustical level attainable from the instrument/environment . Directional microphones / noise gates, etc. are used to minimize mechanical noise, if necessary. The master recording's dynamic range can, depending on composition, etc., very well be in excess of 90 dB. I repeat, there is *no* music master tape with a dynamic range of more than 80dB, so as ever, your fanciful musings are at odds with reality. I believe it was dbx claiming a 100 dB requirement for the recording of acoustical instruments' performances. What a company *selling* companders may claim, has nothing to do with reality. Note that compansion is no longer used, since CD took over the music market. Second: many types of music don't use acoustical instruments, or exclusively so, yet also do not start out as amplified music, so another strawman there noted. *Many* types? I don't think so, but even there you're quite wrong - see below. Electronically generated signals can have pretty much a dynamic range that is limited by the electronics used, that is *well over 100 dB*. Actually, it's more like 70-75 dB for real-world electronic instruments. Get a grip, and stop making things up. The *reality* is that *no* music master tape, Pet Shop Boys and Mike Oldfield included, has a dynamic range of more then 80dB. Until you can find such a tape, please stop making such a fool of yourself. : : As from environmental factors, 27 dB daytime eq. reported in NL iirc. : : That's in average living rooms, should be better in your dedicated room : : , i presume. : : : : I have yet to find an *average* living room that quiet, I'd have said : : that 30-35 dB was more normal in daytime, more for urban dwellings. : : : : I'm not confusing, i'm detracting one from the other, eh ? : : in this case**, 110 - 20 = 90 dB range. : : : : From where did you get the 20? : I got lucky - found it in a breakfast cereal box : - where did you find your 40, P.? : : Acoustics textbooks, also wide experience or real concert halls. : make up your mind: is it wide experience OR real concert halls ? Typo, that should have been 'of', not 'or'. An *honest* debater would have realised this, and avoided such a pathetic cheap shot. :-) : ...deceptive editing noted.....** : : : but anyway, surely you're not : : saying that the background noise level in a listening room should : : dictate the range that should be captured on a medium ? : : : : No, you completely misread what I wrote. For most people, it does : : however set a limit of around 70-80dB in the replay system, from the : : 30-35 of the room noise floor to the 105-110 of the system at the : : listening position. : : agreed. : : Exceptionally quiet rooms housing exceptionally : : powerful systems can extend this to a little more than 90dB, which is : : wider than you'll ever need. : : a little more ? need ?? to use a direct quote: Bull****! : evidently, _you_ misread music as live music ... : without it, of course, you argumentation falls utterly apart. : : What lunacy is this? What kind of music do you now claim you are : talking about? See above. As I said - lunacy. And ignorance. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#1708
|
|||
|
|||
|
I am writing about the case Pinkerton against my instinct
telling me that one gets soiled by association. I would not want to or know how to reply on his level. It is easy to dismiss his vile, personal attacks as harmless signs of immaturity They range from "Utter rubbish" through "You're a crook and a liar", or "Don't be an arsehole" (Message 1835, Aug 18 to a Mr. Packer), to his ultimate argument "You're a sad sack of ****." And all this in polemics about audio! Just imagine what he'd have to say in a political or religious argument!! Providing, of course, that HE held the whip. Unfortunately I have to live with memories of verbal violence turning into mass murder. Stalins, Hitlers and Maos could not have done without thousands of eager executioners to assist them- the Gestapo and GPU murderers. And no doubt these humanoids shouted filth at their victims because dehumanising them first makes the torture and killing easier. No doubt many of the humanoids were, good neighbours, fond of their dogs and their children. But from verbal violence it is not far to violent deeds-just give some of these ordinary Serbs, Hutus ad Sudanese the right circumstances. And for an intermediate step in this descent into nether regions see Pinkerton's Neo-Nazi musings on how to "improve" Appalachia by "eugenics" of Dr. Mengele variety (message 1432, Aug 11) Ludovic Mirabel OPTIONAL ADDENDUM: For those not yet terminally bored with the issue I'm summarising the history of this debate Nothing wrong with individuals using blinding as a precaution against bias- as long as they do not think that THEIR results thereby acquire a persuasive weight of *evidence* valid for anyone but themselves. The attempt to give it a rigid ABX protocol cast resulted so far (four decades) in a failure to prove its usefulness for detection of component differences. The sighted bias is avoided and the baby gets spilled with the bath-water. As yet no one gave a proper reference (Journal,Author(s), year, month, page) to one single peer-reviewed, statistically valid report about COMPARING ANY audio components and getting a positive outcome- ie. majority heard differences when ABXing. The reports so far have all been negative ie "It all sounds the same". But the fact that such a report does not exist does not faze Pinkerton. He invents them. First gossip published by him on the Usenet of what he and his three pals heard comparing amplifiers. When it is pointed out to him that anecdotes are not evidence he produces another anecdote about what the "industry" is supposed to be doing. And finally he sends people down another blind alley: the Eureka/Archimedes project. That is what they had to say for themselves without Pinkerton translation : " Project E!105 Archimedes, which ran from 1987 until 1992, was a partnership between Bang & Olufsen, the Department of Acoustic Technology at the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) and KEF Audio Ltd in the UK. *** Its goal was to investigate how sound quality in the home is affected by the surroundings and how to compensate for factors that have a negative impact on it, according to Soren Bech from Bang & Olufsen***" Not a word about COMPARING COMPONENTS BY ABX. Not in this summary, not in the wholw website. But this does not stop him. He says: (message 1820, Aug 17): "More typical lies and deception from Mirabel. Try this from the same article, which you clearly tried to avoid: " An acoustically transparent screen surrounded the listening chair, hiding the exact loudspeaker positions and the rest of the chamber environment from the listener" This is his answer to a request for a report of COMPARING AUDIO COMPONENTS by abx/dbt. Like Goebbels in his time there is no limit to his contempt for the brains of his audience. The bigger the lie the more it is likely that the normals will say: "He couldn't just have invented it all. There must be SOMETHING to it" For the record: I was involved in DBT drug trials before Pinkerton ever heard the word. Being blinded to the position of a speaker that B&O are trying to make spherical as an "invisible' sound source is an obvious precaution. But what has all that to do with COMPARING COMPONENTS BY ABX? Double blinding is an excellent precaution against one source of bias. I play with it myself when I listen to a new component. But it would never occur to anyone who is not a stranger to the richness of individual human experience to maintain that his listening sighted, blinded, double-blinded and ABXing and/or seated on a horse is scientific EVIDENCE that what he can not hear no one else can. And mark this: B&O reserch was about loudspeakers. This is what he had to say when two weeks ago I mentioned comparing loudspeakers; "Utter rubbish. There are no DBTs of carts or speakers because they would be pointless- 100% every time" ( message 636,July 31). I'd have to ask him for help to provide a suitable comment.. Pinkerton soldiers on: "It's a matter of recorded fact that the Archimedes experiments used DBT protocols - after all, they already knew back then that sighted listening was useless" Maybe they did use DBT as one research tool, may be not. They say nothing about it. But he knows! "It is a matter of recorded fact..," Records are recorded so that they can be referred to and quoted. I reprinted what the Eureka partners said. Not a word about "double blind tests".in their website. And certainly nothing about ABX/DBT results as conclusive evidence in their research. The "record" is Pinkerton's let's call it, fantasy. (He'd use different wording) This nonrecorded record, whispered confidentially into Pinkerton's privileged ear, is on a par with his gossip about his home amplifier "test", his gossip about what "industry" is doing and his latest: dodge ; the silly wild goose chase after Archimedes/Eureka Still not ONE GENUINE REFERENCE, not even a quote about comparing and DISTINGUISHING audio components by ABX/DBT. Instead lots of profanity. AS for his stupidly transparent, gambit of creating a diversion asking for "MY evidence about my claims." ". Which claims? He does not quote one because they do not exist. I do not believe that an experimental method exists to prove or disprove my personal experiences. He claims he has a foolproof method for showing up differences between components. I have none. I have my unscientific, untestable, unprovable preferences. He is the one with claims and it is up to him to show that his method works. Gossip interlarded with four-letter worda is not enough To me "discussion" with such as he is not only frustrating bu also repulsive. He may be a decent enough guy to meet in a pub. I can't tell. I only know his internet Persona. And this inspires me with revulsion. He can go on. I won't. Ludovic Mirabel ***************** Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:59:24 +0200, "Ruud Broens" wrote: : snip, irrelevant : "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message : ... : hmm. clearly, in the case of establishing the CD format, : there were definite incentives to get the sample size : and rate as low as possible: to get an adequate duration : with the limitations of the technically & economically : viable solution available in 1980. : that's not an opinion, but a fact :-) : Rudy : : nb Philips originally wanted to settle on a 14 bit : linear coded format. Sony upped that to 16....come on, : 14 bits ?? who are ya kiddin? Listening tests ??? : : Vinyl, on the best day of its life, is around 12 bits : equivalent. The widest dynamic range known on a music : master tape is around 80dB, 14 bits will allow a properly : dithered dynamic range of 81dB. What's the problem? :: snip, irrelevant : Explain why your claimed dynamic range of mastertapes is relevant to the establishment of a hifi standard of dynamic range. It sets the limit to what the replay medium need encompass. Actual music should set the dynamic range target, not some -- this is technically possible in the 80's -- arbitrary range. Actual live music never exceeds about 85-90dB, even under *very* exceptional circumstances, and is more commonly 65-70dB dynamic range. this century, they can attain higher master tape quality, Stewart: http://www.strongestudios.com/folio.html so your 80 dB sound like a gospel :-) You don't know much about recording, do you Ruud? There's no way that will exceed 65dB dynamic range. no numbers, but interesting anyway : http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/2192/essays7.html Rudy heard a concert grand played up close 80 dB for real ? no Sttway, Jose You are confusing dynamic range with maxiumum SPL, the *noise floor* will hardly ever be less than 40dB SPL. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#1709
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... : "Ruud Broens" wrote in message : : : First: studio recording of acoustical instruments result : in music registrations --what's your hangup with 'concert : hall noise floor' as being in some way relevant with such : a registration? Self-noise of competent microphones is : below 20 dB SPL, eg. AT 3035 - a USD 200 job - states 12 : dB SPL eq. noise level : : While $200 will get you a mic with a 12 dB SPL noise figure, : no amount of money will get you a concert hall with 100 : people in it that has a 12 dB SPL noise floor. studio recording of acoustical instruments - doesn't read like "concert hall with 100 people" agreed ? : Close miking just about anything will quickly get you in the : 110+ dB SPL range, so a 100 dB range is possible for sure. : : Ignorance of concert hall noise floors, particularly those : with people, even just the musicians in them, noted. studio recording of acoustical instruments - doesn't read like "concert hall with 100 people" agreed ? : : Of course : this also depends on the lowest acoustical level : attainable from the instrument/environment . Directional : microphones / noise gates, etc. are used to minimize : mechanical noise, if necessary. : : The noise floor of a concert hall is usually quite : pervasive. Furthermore, its pretty much guaranteed that the : noisiest part of the room is where the people are, even if : its just the musicians. : studio recording of acoustical instruments - doesn't read like "concert hall with 100 people" agreed ? : The master recording's dynamic range can, depending on : composition, etc., very well be in excess of 90 dB. : : It just doesn't seem to happen. : : I believe it was DBX claiming a 100 dB requirement for : the recording of acoustical instruments' performances. : : I guess you haven't figured out that vendor claims and the : fact can be slightly divergent at times. : : A lot of recordings are said to be made without compression : or gain riding, and I see no reason for so many people to : lie about it. If you look at actual recording, the dynamic : range pretty well peaks out below 75 dB. : : Second: many types of music don't use acoustical : instruments, or exclusively so, yet also do not start out : as amplified music, so another straw man there noted. : Electronically generated signals can have pretty much a : dynamic range that is limited by the electronics used, : that is *well over 100 dB*. : : Again, your ignorance is showing. While electronic : instruments may create sounds over 100 dB, their dynamic : range is often quite less. I routinely record electronic : keyboards for example. They often have noise floors that are : only 60-70 dB down. Remember, they have analog circuitry in : them as well, even if the notes are generated digitally. : physical modeling, eg. from applied acoustics systems, use the available soundcard, calculated at 32 bit floating, up to 24 bit 192 kHz sample size, why would that 60-70 be the case, Arny ? Kurzweil, Korg, Yamaha, Alesis, etc. keyboards of today all use that or similar formats, not really comparable with stuff from the 70's. ...so who's the ignorant party here ? R. |
|
#1710
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news 
: On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:16:10 +0200, "Ruud Broens" : wrote: : : : "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message : .. . : : On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:48:41 +0200, "Ruud Broens" : : wrote: : : some snippin' required, so here goes : : : Your idiocy continues. That's the noise floor of the concert hall, : : : only studio recordings are able to get below a 30dB noise floor, and : : : that would require pretty quiet breathing on the part of the : : : performers. : : : As noted above, with only me sitting quietly in it, my : : : listening room is somewhere in the mid-20s (very difficult to measure : : : due to self-noise in the microphone). : : : Interesting tactic - first rewriting music as _live music_, then claiming : : from that point onwards that's what i wrote : : - taken lessons in the debating trade ? : : : : Your stupidity appears to be unbounded - specifying live music, i.e. : : acoustic jazz, classical etc, works in your favour, as amplified music : : has even less dynamic range. : : : First: studio recording of acoustical instruments result in music registrations : --what's your hangup with 'concert hall noise floor' as being in some way : relevant with such a registration? : : What, you think that studios don't have a noise floor? not your 40 dB mentioned. Problem reading "Of course this.." ? : : Self-noise of competent microphones is below : 20 dB SPL, eg. AT 3035 - a USD 200 job - states 12 dB SPL eq. noise level : Close miking just about anything will quickly get you in the 110+ dB SPL : range, so a 100 dB range is possible for sure. : : Utter bull****! Put one musician in that studio, and your 12dB floor : immediately jumps to at least 20dB, more likely 25 as soon as he : begins to play, and is therefore not sitting absolutely still. Do you : have *any* concept of how quiet 20dB is? Yeah, it's 20 dB above the average hearing treshold :-) Do you have any idea how mediocre your microphone was, not being able to determine 25 dB SPL background noise due to self-noise ? ;-) : At that level (and I have : spent some time in anechoic chambers - very unpleasant) the &only : sounds you can hear are your clothing rustling as you breathe, your : own breathing, and the blood coursing through your ears. It usually : takes about two minutes of sitting absolutely still in an utterly : quiet environment before you can perceive these noises. &Strange. my experience is that i can hear _all sounds_ very well, not just the bloody ears :-) in that situation. : : A typical string quartet will generate something like 30-35 dB in the : rests between playing. Basically Ruud, your every post reveals that : you know absolutely nothing about acoustics. : basically Stewart, your every post presupposes some type of music/some type of instrument/some type of recording setting- have you actually made any recordings or are you just quoting some textbook ? : Of course this also depends on : the lowest acoustical level attainable from the instrument/environment . : Directional microphones / noise gates, etc. are used to minimize mechanical : noise, : if necessary. : The master recording's dynamic range can, depending on composition, etc., : very well be in excess of 90 dB. : : I repeat, there is *no* music master tape with a dynamic range of more : than 80dB, so as ever, your fanciful musings are at odds with reality. : : I believe it was dbx claiming a 100 dB requirement for the recording of : acoustical instruments' performances. : : What a company *selling* companders may claim, has nothing to do with : reality. Note that compansion is no longer used, since CD took over : the music market. : : Second: many types of music don't use acoustical instruments, or exclusively so, : yet also do not start out as amplified music, so another strawman there noted. : : *Many* types? I don't think so, but even there you're quite wrong - : see below. : : Electronically generated signals can have pretty much a dynamic range that : is limited by the electronics used, that is *well over 100 dB*. : : Actually, it's more like 70-75 dB for real-world electronic : instruments. Get a grip, and stop making things up. The *reality* is : that *no* music master tape, Pet Shop Boys and Mike Oldfield included, : has a dynamic range of more then 80dB. Until you can find such a tape, : please stop making such a fool of yourself. : tape ? where was tape introduced ? oh, i get it, another round of debating trade. : : : As from environmental factors, 27 dB daytime eq. reported in NL iirc. : : : That's in average living rooms, should be better in your dedicated room : : : , i presume. : : : : : : I have yet to find an *average* living room that quiet, I'd have said : : : that 30-35 dB was more normal in daytime, more for urban dwellings. : : : : : : I'm not confusing, i'm detracting one from the other, eh ? : : : in this case**, 110 - 20 = 90 dB range. : : : : : : From where did you get the 20? : : I got lucky - found it in a breakfast cereal box : : - where did you find your 40, P.? : : : : Acoustics textbooks, also wide experience or real concert halls. : : : make up your mind: is it wide experience OR real concert halls ? : : Typo, that should have been 'of', not 'or'. An *honest* debater would : have realised this, and avoided such a pathetic cheap shot. : : :-) : : ...deceptive editing noted.....** : : : : : but anyway, surely you're not : : : saying that the background noise level in a listening room should : : : dictate the range that should be captured on a medium ? : : : : : : No, you completely misread what I wrote. For most people, it does : : : however set a limit of around 70-80dB in the replay system, from the : : : 30-35 of the room noise floor to the 105-110 of the system at the : : : listening position. : : : : agreed. : : : : Exceptionally quiet rooms housing exceptionally : : : powerful systems can extend this to a little more than 90dB, which is : : : wider than you'll ever need. : : : : a little more ? need ?? to use a direct quote: Bull****! : : evidently, _you_ misread music as live music ... : : without it, of course, you argumentation falls utterly apart. : : : : What lunacy is this? What kind of music do you now claim you are : : talking about? : : See above. : : As I said - lunacy. And ignorance. : -- sure, i ignore your 'facts' as they are not in fact factual, just your imagination working overtime - there _is_ a difference R. : Stewart Pinkerton | Music is A - Ignorance is B |
|
#1711
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Ruud Broens" wrote in message First: studio recording of acoustical instruments result in music registrations --what's your hang-up with 'concert hall noise floor' as being in some way relevant with such a registration? Self-noise of competent microphones is below 20 dB SPL, eg. AT 3035 - a USD 200 job - states 12 dB SPL eq. noise level While $200 will get you a mic with a 12 dB SPL noise figure, no amount of money will get you a concert hall with 100 people in it that has a 12 dB SPL noise floor. studio recording of acoustical instruments - doesn't read like "concert hall with 100 people" agreed ? It's not the same but its not necessarily significantly different when it comes to dynamic range. Close miking just about anything will quickly get you in the 110+ dB SPL range, so a 100 dB range is possible for sure. Ignorance of concert hall noise floors, particularly those with people, even just the musicians in them, noted. studio recording of acoustical instruments - doesn't read like "concert hall with 100 people" agreed ? It's not the same but its not necessarily significantly different when it comes to dynamic range. Of course this also depends on the lowest acoustical level attainable from the instrument/environment . Directional microphones / noise gates, etc. are used to minimize mechanical noise, if necessary. The noise floor of a concert hall is usually quite pervasive. Furthermore, its pretty much guaranteed that the noisiest part of the room is where the people are, even if its just the musicians. studio recording of acoustical instruments - doesn't read like "concert hall with 100 people" agreed ? It's not the same but its not necessarily significantly different when it comes to dynamic range. The master recording's dynamic range can, depending on composition, etc., very well be in excess of 90 dB. It just doesn't seem to happen. I believe it was DBX claiming a 100 dB requirement for the recording of acoustical instruments' performances. I guess you haven't figured out that vendor claims and the fact can be slightly divergent at times. A lot of recordings are said to be made without compression or gain riding, and I see no reason for so many people to lie about it. If you look at actual recording, the dynamic range pretty well peaks out below 75 dB. Second: many types of music don't use acoustical instruments, or exclusively so, yet also do not start out as amplified music, so another straw man there noted. Electronically generated signals can have pretty much a dynamic range that is limited by the electronics used, that is *well over 100 dB*. Again, your ignorance is showing. While electronic instruments may create sounds over 100 dB, their dynamic range is often quite less. I routinely record electronic keyboards for example. They often have noise floors that are only 60-70 dB down. Remember, they have analog circuitry in them as well, even if the notes are generated digitally. physical modeling, e.g.. from applied acoustics systems, use the available soundcard, calculated at 32 bit floating, upto 24 bit 192 kHz sample size, why would that 60-70 be the case, Arny ? Kurzweil, Korg, Yamaha, Alesis, etc. keyboards of today all use that or similar formats, not really comparable with stuff from the 70's. All you're doing is talking theory. If things were as you say, recordings with 80 dB would be commonplace. In fact, they are like hen's teeth. AFAIK, the widest dynamic range recording that has been distributed to the public is this one: http://64.41.69.21/technical/referen...gle-2_2496.wav I know exactly what it took to make it. Your challenge - find a real world recording with more dynamic range. |
|
#1712
|
|||
|
|||
|
I know why the Krooborg is so terrified of vinyl and turntables. It's not the same but its not necessarily significantly different when it comes to dynamic range. It's not the same but its not necessarily significantly different when it comes to dynamic range. It's not the same but its not necessarily significantly different when it comes to dynamic range. Arnii's own needle is stuck in a rut. The "debating trade" is all canned. Who knew? ;-) |
|
#1713
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message ... I know why the Krooborg is so terrified of vinyl and turntables. It's not the same but its not necessarily significantly different when it comes to dynamic range. It's not the same but its not necessarily significantly different when it comes to dynamic range. It's not the same but its not necessarily significantly different when it comes to dynamic range. Arnii's own needle is stuck in a rut. The "debating trade" is all canned. Who knew? ;-) Prove it! Prove it! Prove it! ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#1714
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clyde Slick said: Arnii's own needle is stuck in a rut. The "debating trade" is all canned. Who knew? ;-) Prove it! Asked and answered. Prove it! Thanks Mr. Scokppupet for admitting you have no proof. Prove it! All the Middius *dupes* say that. LOt"s! |
|
#1715
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 22:49:01 +0200, "Ruud Broens"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news
: On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:16:10 +0200, "Ruud Broens" : wrote: : : : "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message : .. . : : On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:48:41 +0200, "Ruud Broens" : : wrote: snip lots of waffle and arm-waving by Ruud Do you have any idea how mediocre your microphone was, not being able to determine 25 dB SPL background noise due to self-noise ? ;-) Yes, but I don't like large capsule concenser mikes. : At that level (and I have : spent some time in anechoic chambers - very unpleasant) the &only : sounds you can hear are your clothing rustling as you breathe, your : own breathing, and the blood coursing through your ears. It usually : takes about two minutes of sitting absolutely still in an utterly : quiet environment before you can perceive these noises. &Strange. my experience is that i can hear _all sounds_ very well, not just the bloody ears :-) in that situation. In that situation, there pretty much *are* no other sounds - or you wouldn't have a 20dB noise floor. That's *very* quiet, almost anechoic chamber quiet. : A typical string quartet will generate something like 30-35 dB in the : rests between playing. Basically Ruud, your every post reveals that : you know absolutely nothing about acoustics. : basically Stewart, your every post presupposes some type of music/some type of instrument/some type of recording setting Strange that, considering that we're discussing music recordings.... What were you drinking when you posted that comment? - have you actually made any recordings or are you just quoting some textbook ? Dozens of them - I even used to do them for a living at PERA, when measuring industriual noise levels. snip lots of ducking and diving by Ruud : Electronically generated signals can have pretty much a dynamic range that : is limited by the electronics used, that is *well over 100 dB*. : : Actually, it's more like 70-75 dB for real-world electronic : instruments. Get a grip, and stop making things up. The *reality* is : that *no* music master tape, Pet Shop Boys and Mike Oldfield included, : has a dynamic range of more then 80dB. Until you can find such a tape, : please stop making such a fool of yourself. : tape ? where was tape introduced ? oh, i get it, another round of debating trade. Master tape, Ruud, *master* tape. No debating trade, that would be *your* speciality here. There are no *master* tapes with more than 80dB dynamic range, so your arm-waving speculation is just so much smoke and mirrors, as is usual with you. snip more insubstantial blather by Ruud : As I said - lunacy. And ignorance. : -- sure, i ignore your 'facts' as they are not in fact factual, just your imagination working overtime - there _is_ a difference R. There certainly is a difference. I am quoting real-world figures, you are making up fairy stories. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#1716
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Designing "fuzzy logic" database systems that could identify
recidivists in one of the best known penal systems in the country." Could you tell us more about this? Interested, Will Dwinnell http://will.dwinnell.com |
|
#1717
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 22:49:01 +0200, "Ruud Broens" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news
: On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:16:10 +0200, "Ruud Broens": wrote: : : : "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message : .. . : : On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:48:41 +0200, "Ruud Broens" : : wrote: snip lots of waffle and arm-waving by Ruud Do you have any idea how mediocre your microphone was, not being able to determine 25 dB SPL background noise due to self-noise ? ;-) Yes, but I don't like large capsule concenser mikes. Please tell us in detail your experiences with them. Cordially, Iain |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Arny vs. Atkinson debat - Could someone post a blow by blow? | Audio Opinions | |||
| The Bill May Report on Single-Ended Output Transformers for 300B etc | Vacuum Tubes | |||
| Sub Amps - a Follow up Question | Tech | |||
| Yet another DBT post | High End Audio | |||
| Run Rabbit Run | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Linear Mode
